Jory Cadman, School of

Environment and Sustainability

Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) land management practices in Saskatchewan

Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) land

management practices in Saskatchewan

A Project Submitted to the College

of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master of Sustainable Environmental Management

in the School of Environment and Sustainability

University of Saskatchewan

Saskatoon

by

Jory Cadman, MSEM candidate

August 1, 2019

Project Advisor: Dr. Kenneth Belcher & Dr. James Robson

Project Co-advisor & Partner Organization: Matthew Braun, Nature Conservancy of Canada & Darrell

Crabbe, Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation

Project Coordinator: Vladimir Kricsfalusy

© Copyright Jory Cadman. August, 2019. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer

The purpose of this report is educational and does not substitute for professional services in any areas, including for example architectural, civil, legal, mechanical or health related design. This work was completed on a voluntary basis for the organization cited above. The work served the experiential learning component of a course entitled ENVS 992, offered in the School of Environment and Sustainability’s Masters of Sustainable Environmental Management program. No obligations or liabilities are implied.

Copyright for the report remains with the author. The author may grant license for use upon written request. Conditions for use must be outlined in advance in a written agreement between the author and the organization for which the project was conducted. When a third party requests permission for use, the author, the organization and the School of Environment and Sustainability must approve this request in writing.

Permission to Use

Permission to use this report is hereby given to the School of Environment and Sustainability (SENS), Nature Conservancy of Canada and Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my faculty advisors Dr. Kenneth Belcher and Dr. James Robson for their insight and constructive feedback in each aspect of the project. I would like to thank the MSEM program director, Vladimir Kricsfalusy, for providing guidance throughout the MSEM program Thank you also to my community organization representative, Matthew Braun of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, who helped to organize project design, data collection, and provided feedback in each aspect of the project. I would also like to thank Darrell Crabbe of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation and other representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Development fund Land Trust partners for being present at meetings and assisting in laying out project design, goals, and objectives. I would also like to thank the students at the Social Science Research Lab at the University of Saskatchewan for assisting with online survey design, as well as other faculty and students in the School of Environment and Sustainability who provided assistance in various ways. A special thanks to those who consented to partake in an interview or online survey, providing the data and information to make this project possible.

Executive Summary “Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) land management practices in Saskatchewan” was a collaborative project between the University of Saskatchewan and the Fish and Wildlife Development fund Land Trust partners. The aim of this project was to explore and document attitudes towards conservation areas and conservation land management practices. There were two main objectives for this project: (1) Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the FWDF and (2) Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices and biodiversity outcomes. The outcome of the project was to assist the FWDF in improving public awareness of the location of these lands, and bringing awareness to the land management practices in the region. Twelve in-person interviews and an online survey were conducted with individuals (35 respondents) in various areas of Saskatchewan, most of which had many FWDF parcels in the area. The interview and survey instruments included a range of questions concerning personal access of FWDF lands, public access and awareness, FWDF land management practices, and any specific concerns they had about any of these. Project participants also offered their thoughts on conservation in Saskatchewan in general and some of the land management techniques practiced by other conservation organizations. In some cases, project participants’ opinions were easily generalizable and individuals seemed to be in agreement. In other cases, attitudes and opinions were divided. These nuances are expressed throughout the report. A set of recommendations were made, which were informed by project participants’ thoughts and opinions, as well as observations made by the graduate student. The recommendations made to the FWDF are as follows: (1) ensure scientific study results are presentable and accessible to the public, (2) conduct multi-stakeholder focus groups with various FWDF land users, (3) make information on public access and public land use regulations more clear (4) designate a team or individual to conduct public outreach and communication, and (5) provide more information online, including maps showing FWDF parcels and information on land management techniques. The use of GIS can be employed here to layer or combine maps of conservation areas managed by various organizations, and provide other information, such as access regulations and land management techniques in a given area. These recommendations can help to improve public outreach and communication, and help to identify where further research needs to be done. The FWDF, and the conservation organizations who are part of this partnership, do important work in conserving spaces of Saskatchewan with high biological diversity that are important in providing wildlife habitat, and spaces for people to enjoy and use for a variety of purposes. Understanding public perceptions and attitudes towards these areas and the land management practices that take place there is an important social aspect of environmental decision making and conservation land management.

Table of Contents Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................3

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................5

List of Tables................................................................................................................................................6

List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................6

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................7

Purpose....................................................................................................................................................7

Rationale..................................................................................................................................................7

Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................................7

Objectives and Research Questions........................................................................................................8

Target Audience......................................................................................................................................8

Background Information.............................................................................................................................8

National Context......................................................................................................................................8

Conservation Policies...............................................................................................................................8

Ecosystem Services...............................................................................................................................10

Public Involvement................................................................................................................................11

Conservation in Saskatchewan..............................................................................................................11

The Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) Land Trust partners...............................................11

Ducks Unlimited Canada...................................................................................................................12

Nature Conservancy of Canada.........................................................................................................12

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation....................................................................................................12

Fish and Wildlife Development Fund.................................................................................................13

FWDF land Acquisition and Land Management Land Acquisition........................................................14

The role of grazing and haying on FWDF lands.................................................................................14

Methods Study Area..................................................................................................................................15

Data Collection Methods.......................................................................................................................16

Individual Interviews..........................................................................................................................16

Online Survey.....................................................................................................................................17

Data Analysis Procedures......................................................................................................................19

Individual Interviews..........................................................................................................................19

Online survey.....................................................................................................................................20

Results........................................................................................................................................................20

Use of FWDF lands.................................................................................................................................20

Access to FWDF lands FWDF users access...........................................................................................22

Public access......................................................................................................................................23

Public awareness of FWDF lands...........................................................................................................24

Grazing and other land management practices....................................................................................27

Concerns and suggestions.....................................................................................................................32

Conservation in Saskatchewan and other comments...........................................................................34

Discussion..................................................................................................................................................36

Project Limitations................................................................................................................................38

Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................38

Presentation and accessibility of scientific study results......................................................................39

Multi-stakeholder focus groups.............................................................................................................39

Clarity in public access and public land use regulations........................................................................39

Designated public outreach person.......................................................................................................40

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................40

References.................................................................................................................................................41

Appendix A – Semi-structured Interview Guide........................................................................................45

Appendix B – Survey Questionnaire..........................................................................................................46

Appendix C – Consent form for interviews................................................................................................49

Appendix D – Recruitment email for interview participants.....................................................................53

Appendix E – List of themes and codes.....................................................................................................54

List of Figures Figure 1: Terrestrial areas in Canada conserved under different jurisdictions (expressed in thousands of square kilometres) (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018, p.8). ........................................... 9 Figure 2: Proportion of ecozones conserved, Canada, 2018 (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018, p. 10). .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3: Frequency of visitation to local conservation areas among survey respondents ...................... 21

Figure 4: Types of conservation land uses among survey respondents .................................................. 22 Figure 5: Word cloud on improving public access ................................................................................. 26 Figure 6: Bar graph expressing opinions on various land management techniques by survey respondents............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 7: Importance of conservation areas to survey respondents ....................................................... 35 Figure 8: Reasons for importance of conservation areas ....................................................................... 36

List of Tables Table 1: Rural municipalities with the highest amount of FWDF conservation areas ............................. 16 Table 2: Locations of areas of residence of interview participants ......................................................... 17 Table 3: Various types of land uses among interview participants ......................................................... 20 Table 4: Primary land use among interview participants ....................................................................... 21 Table 5: Interview participant opinions on public access, by land user group ......................................... 23 Table 6: Survey participant suggestions on increasing access to conservation areas ............................. 23 Table 7: Interview participant opinions on public awareness, by land user group ................................. 24 Table 8: Interview participant suggestions on increasing public awareness of conservation areas ........ 26 Table 9: Interview participant comments on grazing ............................................................................ 28 Table 10: Opinions on various land management practices by survey respondents ............................... 28 Table 11: Comments on grazing from survey respondents ................................................................... 29 Table 12: Comments on haying from survey respondents ..................................................................... 30 Table 13: Comments on timber harvesting from survey respondents .................................................... 31 Table 14: Comments on spraying for weed control from survey respondents ....................................... 31 Table 15: Interview participant concerns about conservation areas ....................................................... 32 Table 16: Interview participant suggestions for alternative land use practices/activities ....................... 33 Table 17: Comments, concerns, suggestions on conservation lands from survey respondents .............. 34

List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition FWDF Fish and Wildlife Development Fund DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada SWF Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation NCC Nature Conservancy of Canada MSEM Masters of Sustainable Environmental Management

SENS School of Environment and Sustainability GIS Geographic Information Systems NGO Non-governmental organization RM Rural municipality

Introduction Purpose The purpose of this project was to assess public attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) lands and land management practices in Saskatchewan. The FWDF partners manage over 60,000 hectares of conservation land parcels throughout Saskatchewan. These areas are conserved to provide the best possible natural habitat for the greatest number of plant and animal species. The FWDF Land Trust partners are interested in exploring public perceptions towards their conservation lands, improving public awareness of the location of these lands, and bringing awareness to the land management practices in these regions. By conducting interviews and survey questionnaires in rural municipalities that have a high concentration of FWDF conservation lands, this project aimed to explore and document attitudes towards conservation areas and conservation land management practices. Gathering this information will assist the FWDF Land Trust partners in identifying ways to engage with those who use or come in contact with these areas, and improve perceptions of their land management techniques.

Rationale There are challenges to managing over 60,000 hectares of conservation parcels. Concerns have been raised by some members of the public around the idea that some FWDF lands are being grazed and are no longer accessible for hunting and other activities. Additionally, there may be individuals who are unaware that FWDF lands exist in their area, what they are used for, or how to access them. Some may not be aware of the distinction between FWDF conservation lands and those owned and managed by another organization exclusively, such as DUC, NCC, or SWF.

Conservation lands in Saskatchewan are important for a variety of reasons. Not only are they open to the public to enjoy, areas held in conservation areas also help to provide an assortment of ecosystem services such as clean water and air supply, climate regulation, soil protection and the maintenance of soil fertility (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998). Some are open to opportunities for haying and grazing. Moreover, FWDF conservation lands contribute to provincial and national targets for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity outcomes can be improved by involving the public and taking into account the perspectives of those who use or live near conservation lands (Pretty & Smith, 2004). Gathering attitudes and perspectives provides information for those involved in conservation management and policy action (Junge et al., 2009).

Project Outcomes The findings of this research project can be used to inform and improve how FWDF conservation lands are used and accessed, as well as aligning public perception and values with conservation land and management. This information will improve future public outreach and education regarding conservation area locations, land uses, and management. The information will assist the FWDF in working towards their goal of improving biodiversity conservation in Saskatchewan.

Objectives and Research Questions The overall goal of this project was to assess the attitudes of the public towards FWDF conservation land management practices.

There are two main objectives associated with this project:

1) Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the FWDF.

2) Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices, and eventually, biodiversity outcomes

To address these objectives, the following research questions were explored:

1) What level of awareness does the public have towards areas that have been secured and managed by the FWDF?

2) To what extent is the general public using these lands, and for what purposes? 3) Are there any concerns over the land management practices being carried out on FWDF-

secured lands? 4) Where and how could the FWDF partners do more public outreach to ensure people are aware

of FWDF land locations, and how these lands are managed?

Target Audience The target audience for this report includes members of the organizations that make up the FWDF Land Trust partners. The wider audience for this project includes those involved in conservation in Saskatchewan, including conservationists, land users, policy makers, and other interested individuals.

Background Information National Context Mineau & McLaughlin (1996) define biodiversity in the Canadian context as that which “comprises the vast array of living organisms which have evolved and become an integral part of the Canadian landscape” (p. 94). They characterize the Canadian environment as being one that “may not be as species-rich as an equivalent area in the tropics but many of the species or genetic forms to be found within it are uniquely adapted and are therefore of great national and international conservation interest” (Mineau & McLaughlin, 1996, p. 94). They and other authors describe how conservation ideologies and practices have undergone changes since western ideas of conservation came to be, roughly 100 years ago (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Henderson, 1992). Edwards & Abivardi argue that attitudes have shifted in the past two decades based on the idea that biodiversity is being widely threatened and that we need it to survive. “The role and importance of conservation is changing dramatically because of the rapid increase in environmental problems and the recognition that biological diversity is an essential resource for human survival” (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998, p. 239). The motivations of conservationists, too, have shifted away from being primarily scientific in interest, to taking other aspects of biodiversity into consideration and its value to humans (Junge et al., 2009). Conservation programs and laws are becoming increasingly a part of national and international policy agendas.

Conservation Policies Canada has been part of a larger global effort to conserve biodiversity. In 1993, Canada ratified the agreement of the Convention on Biological Diversity, of which there is a global goal to conserve “17% of

terrestrial areas and inland water, and 10% of marine areas, by 2020” (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018, p. 11). The Convention on Biological Diversity also has a larger set of targets as part of their plan for 2050, entitled Living in Harmony with Nature whereby “biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored, and widely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people” (U.N. Environment, n.d. para. 3). Achieving this goal requires that countries take action to minimize biodiversity loss to ensure the ability of ecosystems to be resilient and to be able to provide essential ecosystem services (U.N. Environment, n.d.). This convention considers the preservation of biodiversity and conserved spaces to be an important part of poverty eradication and human well-being (U.N. Environment, n.d.).

Figure1:TerrestrialareasinCanadaconservedunderdifferentjurisdictions(expressedinthousandsofsquare

kilometres)(EnvironmentandClimateChangeCanada,2018,p.8).

A report issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018), indicates that by the end of 2018 Canada had conserved 11.2% of its terrestrial area, as part of a total conserved area which has increased 66% over the past 20 years (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018). In this instance, conserved areas are considered to be “lands and waters where use is limited” (p. 5). In some conserved areas, commercial activities are allowed as long as the conservation of biodiversity is the larger imperative (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018). According to Environment and Climate Change Canada,

Well-managed conserved areas are one way to protect wild species and their habitats for present and future generations. Habitat conservation is a measure of human response to the loss of biodiversity and natural habitat. As the conserved area in Canada increases, more lands and waters are withdrawn from direct human development stresses, thereby contributing to biodiversity conservation and improving the health of ecosystems. In turn, healthy ecosystems provide benefits such as clean water, mitigation of climate change, pollination and improved human health (p. 11).

Conservation efforts have different outcomes in different areas of Canada, depending on geography, climate, human population density, and economic activities, among other factors. In Northern Canada, larger terrestrial areas are easily conserved because of less human activity including agriculture, infrastructure, and population density (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018). The Prairie Ecozone, by contrast, has relatively low percent total area conserved; approximately 6% (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018).

Figure2:Proportionofecozonesconserved,Canada,2018(EnvironmentandClimateChangeCanada,2018,p.

10).

Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are “the specific results of ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life, or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods” (Brown, Bergstrom, & Loomis, p. 329). The concept of ecosystem services falls under the discipline of ecological economics, an area of study which provides a multidisciplinary method for assessing the value of biodiversity, and bolsters the case for conservation (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998). Humans may derive physiological, psychological, and economic benefits from an ecosystem that functions well (Brown, Bergstrom, & Loomis, 2007). Scholars have divided ecosystem services into ‘use’ and ‘non-use’ values, or those that are of direct economic benefit to humans, and those that are of benefit in some other way (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998).

The maintenance of biodiversity is important to ensure well-functioning ecosystems that can provide an array of ecosystem services to humans and the surrounding environment. Conservation organizations seek to enhance ecosystem services by ensuring that the environment remains well-

functioning. This sometimes requires restricting activities or practices that are allowed in a certain area. “When conservation-minded entities own land, they may protect the ecological health of that land and thereby enable the provision of ecosystem services” (Brown, Bergstrom, & Loomis, 2007, p. 361). Examples of ecosystem services that are relevant to Saskatchewan include clean water and air supply, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, climate regulation, soil protection and the maintenance of soil fertility, regulation of floodwater and groundwater, and the provision of recreational opportunities (Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Gleason et al., 2011).

Public Involvement Conservation practices have been shown to be more successful when they incorporate social and environmental perspectives. Junge et al. (2009) argue that conservation should have two foci. “[It] should be about biology, and about people and the choices they make” (pg. 151). These authors argue that public attitudes towards conservation provide valuable information for policy-makers and land managers involved in biodiversity conservation (Junge et al., 2009). Similarly, Pretty & Smith (2004) argue that biodiversity outcomes can be improved by involving people in a way that is proactive and participatory. They call this social learning, which “involves building the capacity of communities to learn about the complex ecological and physical complexity in their ecosystems, and then to come to decisions to act in different ways” (Pretty & Smith, 2004, p. 637). Reed (2007) also highlights the important role that public and civic sectors play in environmental management and the need for environmental management regimes to incorporate social sustainability as well as environmental sustainability to be effective. Reed states that, “Efforts that are rooted in the local are equipped with different toolkits for establishing, pursuing, and achieving conservation priorities” (Reed, 2007, p. 30). This can be a difficult task; “Managers of parks and protected areas are often faced with conflicting challenges as they seek to engage in management practices that are environmentally benign, socially acceptable, and economically viable” (Reed, 2007, p. 34).

Conservation in Saskatchewan Publicly owned Crown land makes up most of the rural area in Canada (Reed, 2007). Crown lands within provinces are mainly under provincial jurisdiction, with some areas held within federal jurisdiction (Reed, 2007). In Saskatchewan, publicly owned land makes up 20% in the southern part of the province and 90% in the northern part of the province. Various initiatives were undertaken at the province level to conserve and protect areas of high biodiversity, and other areas that are of value to wildlife and humans.

The Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) Land Trust partners The following section provides a review of the different agencies that make up the FWDF, their conservation programs and land management activities.

Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focused on the conservation of biodiversity. They have each managed to secure significant amounts of land to advance biodiversity conservation outcomes in Saskatchewan. Each organization has a myriad of programs and projects. It is beyond the scope of this report to describe them all; however, the following sections include a brief background and description of each organization, and an outline of a few of their programs and practices relevant to Saskatchewan. Following this, a description of the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund, their goals, and methods of operation are included.

Ducks Unlimited Canada In 1938, Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) was founded by a group of waterfowl hunters concerned about declining bird populations following significant droughts on the prairies (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018).

Today, DUC continues to work across Canada, and with its partner organizations in the United States and Mexico to “conserve wetlands and other natural spaces for waterfowl, wildlife and people” (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018, p. 18). The pillars of the organization include: scientific research, habitat conservation, outdoor education and public policy advocacy (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018). DUC aims to conserve, restore and manage wetlands by way of various programs and activities including restoration and mitigation work, revolving land conservation programs, and collaborations with landowners (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018, p. 22). DUC uses the practice of grazing and other land management techniques, considered to be waterfowl-friendly, to bolster land management practices that are environmentally and economically sound (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2019).

DUC has also been conducting studies to gain a better understanding of the value wetlands play in providing foraging and nesting sites for pollinator species and other insects that are beneficial for agriculture (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018). These four-year studies began in Alberta in 2016 and have recently expanded to include areas in and around Humboldt, Saskatchewan (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018). They hope that results from these studies will help in developing a greater understanding and beneficial practices around sustainable agriculture (Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2018).

Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) began in the 1960s through efforts by a group of naturalists wishing to promote conservation (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018b). The NCC aims to “identify, plan and execute the protection of the best of Canada's natural spaces and manage and restore them for the long term” (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c). They employ science-based techniques to conserve areas of important biological diversity across Canada (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c).

The NCC has several projects currently operating in Saskatchewan. One of these is a program entitled Learning the Land, where students are exposed to scientific, as well as traditional and cultural ways of thinking about conservation and land management (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c). Indigenous educators, elders, scientists, and NCC staff discuss with students how urban and rural perspectives can complement each other to improve conservation outcomes, and how local, land-based knowledge can be brought into the conservation field (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c).

The NCC is also working in Redberry Lake, which is home to a migratory bird sanctuary (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c). Efforts to involve a range of stakeholders (local landowners, biologists, water stewardship technicians, and others) made it possible for the NCC to create a ‘tailor-made’ conservation plan to protect two distinct areas of grasslands which each include a suite of vulnerable plant and animal species (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c).

Recently, the NCC received 1 million dollars from K+S Potash Canada to offset their Legacy Project mine development (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c). This offset formula is a new program developed by the Ministry of Environment. Money from this effort will be put towards conserving grasslands in Saskatchewan (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2018c).

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation (SWF) was founded in 1929 by a few individuals who wished to advocate for anglers and hunters in the protection of wildlife habitats and natural resources in

Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Their mission is to “ensure the wildlife legacy we leave to our children surpasses that which we inherited” (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019b). The organization currently has over 33,000 members and 122 branches in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2017). They acknowledge that Saskatchewan’s wildlife is a resource belonging to all residents of Saskatchewan and they strive to ensure that each individual has equal access to it (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019b). The SWF promotes the sustainable use of natural resources through wildlife-oriented activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019b).

They have several programs and projects devoted to land conservation. The Habitat Trust program has been in operation since 1978 and has protected over 26,000 hectares. Land is acquired by direct purchase from landowners, or by donation (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Adopt-an-Acre operates within the Habitat Trust program whereby acres can be adopted for $50 each (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Through these projects, the SWF aims to secure approximately 40,500 hectares of native prairie and parkland by 2028 (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Another land conservation venture, The Wildlife Tomorrow stewardship program, encourages landowners to set aside small portions of their land that are deemed to be valuable wildlife habitat (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). This can be done through conservation easements, whereby landowners can identify a portion of their land that they would like to put towards conservation (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Within these initiatives, SWF performs an assessment and pays the landowner a portion of the appraised value (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a).

Other SWF programs include the Fisheries Enhancement Program, which aims to enhance and restore fisheries and angling opportunities in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). The SWF maintains this program through partnerships with various organizations and groups (rural municipalities, watershed stewardship organizations, community groups, government, etc.) (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a). Activities within the Fisheries Enhancement Program include fish passage restoration, stream enhancement and restoration, installation and maintenance of aeration systems, and the development of spawning beds, marshes, rearing ponds and trout ponds (Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019a).

Fish and Wildlife Development Fund In 2015, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment entered into the Saskatchewan Conservation Land Management Trust Agreement with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. This partnership allows these organizations to jointly manage all FWDF lands (FWDF, n.d.). Over 1,200 parcels of land totalling over 60,000 hectares are maintained through the FWDF. The partnership was established under the Natural Resources Act (FWDF, n.d.). Funds are collected through habitat license certificates, trapping, angling, and hunting license fees, and a small portion from Crown land sales. These revenues are used for habitat enhancement, management, and protection throughout Saskatchewan (Ministry of Environment, 2018).

The FWDF has three goals, as indicated on their website: (FWDF, n.d.) (1) Maintain natural habitat through conservation, biodiversity, land management and awareness

of rare species (2) Maintain and grow sustainable fish populations and their habitat (3) Maintain game populations and ensure accessible hunting

FWDF partners partake in various conservation projects including fisheries conservation, land conservation, and habitat management projects. The FWDF makes it clear that although their land

parcels are considered conservation areas, they are not sanctuaries, and public access is encouraged. Hunting and fishing are allowed, along with agricultural grazing and haying. They also encourage bird watching, photography, hiking, and sightseeing (Government of Saskatchewan, n.d.). There are four main rules when visiting FWDF lands: (FWDF, n.d.)

(1) Walk-in traffic only (except when retrieving big game during hunting season); (2) Walk-in camping only - no open fires; (3) No littering; and (4) No interference with an authorized management treatment (e.g., haying or grazing).

FWDF land Acquisition and Land Management Land Acquisition Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, and the FWDF have a variety of ways in which they acquire new areas to set aside for biodiversity conservation. This can be done through conservation easements, whereby landowners can identify a portion of their land that they would like to put towards conservation, among others (Ducks Unlimited Canada, n.d.; Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2019a; Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019c). The NCC defines a conservation easement, or conservation agreement, as “a voluntary, legal agreement between a landowner and conservation organization or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values” (Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2019b, para. 1).

Various land use techniques are under the management of these conservation organizations, including grazing, brush management, prescribed burning, invasive species control, plant and animal surveys, wetland management and more (Ducks Unlimited Canada, n.d.; Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2019a; Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 2019c). Often, hunting and fishing are allowed in these areas as these activities are economically and culturally significant to the population of Saskatchewan, and can advance biodiversity conservation outcomes when managed properly.

The role of grazing and haying on FWDF lands The FWDF has outlined a set of operational guidelines for lands that could potentially be used for grazing. Interested individuals need to submit a request for a permit, and ensure that the parcel of land meets a set of requirements. As stated in the FWDF Grazing Program Operational guidelines document, “The primary objective of the FWDF grazing program is to maintain or improve habitat quality through the use of a managed grazing regime. The program is further intended to reduce potential issues with invasive plant species and risks from wildfires, to generate additional revenue for the Fund and to increase support for retention of wildlife lands in rural communities” (Grazing Program Operational Guidelines, n.d., para. 1).

Grazing is a land management practice with potentially positive net benefits for wildlife, the wider environment, and economic outcomes for the producer (Bloom et al., 2013). Plains bison would have grazed in the prairie ecozone, helping to sustain native grassland vegetation – a major forage resource and provider of diverse ecosystem services (Thorpe et al., 2008). Other environmental benefits of properly-managed grazing include the enhancement of soil quality, pest and weed control, enhancement of wildlife habitat, reduction of soil erosion, reduction of sediment runoff, improvement in water quality, carbon sequestration, as well as improved animal health (USDA, 2015; Government of Saskatchewan, n.d.). Additionally, grazing animals return many of the nutrients they consume back to the land through trampled vegetation and manure.

Agricultural producers interested in grazing are expected to work with the FWDF to make logistical arrangements to ensure the safety of this practice, such as fencing and signage. Grazing lands and operations are evaluated throughout the process to ensure environmental sustainability and maximum benefit to land users. While cattle are on the land, hunting access is off-limits but the area remains open to other recreational users. This and more information is found on the following document: https://fwdfdotca.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/fwdf-grazing-program-operational-guidelines-2019-4-29.pdf

The FWDF seeks expression of interest to hay lands. Haying can be useful where grazing areas are further away or less accessible and when seasonality makes grazing difficult. Haying provides livestock producers with the ability to feed their animals during the winter. As with the grazing program, the FWDF has laid out several guidelines and regulations to ensure the sustainability of this land management practice for people and the environment. This program encourages interested individuals to identify which parcels they would like to use, and view them prior to requesting access. A complete list of guidelines are found on this document: https://fwdfdotca.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/vacant-hay-land-2019.pdf

While haying and grazing have the potential to be beneficial in many ways, there are concerns associated with such land management techniques, from a socio-economic and an environmental perspective. One of the goals of the research was to explore the potential concerns of individuals involved with the FWDF or other conservation organizations in Saskatchewan towards grazing and haying and other land management practices.

Methods Study Area The study area for this project includes three ecoregions in Saskatchewan: Aspen Parkland, Boreal Transition, and Moist Mixed Grassland. These areas were selected to gather varying perspectives from those who live in Saskatchewan and how these perspectives may differ based on the type of ecosystem the participant lives in or encounters.

Initially, three rural municipalities were identified in each of the aforementioned ecoregions as having a larger total area of FWDF parcels:

1) Aspen Parkland: Garry, Glenside, Garry 2) Boreal Transition: Hazel Dell, Preeceville, Spiritwood 3) Moist Mixed Grassland: Lumsden, Wreford, Rudy

These rural municipalities were determined based on a list of FWDF land parcels and their locations, provided by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. A basic analysis was done to determine which rural municipalities had the highest total area of land parcels. This is expressed in Table 1 below:

Table1:RuralmunicipalitieswiththehighestamountofFWDFconservationareas

Data Collection Methods The research design for this project was a collaborative effort between the graduate student and members of the advisory committee. It was designed to be feasible within the timescale of the MSEM program, as well as produce meaningful results for the community partner organization (the FWDF). It was decided that a predominantly qualitative research approach would be adopted, based on semi-structured interviews and an online survey as the main data collection methods.

Individual Interviews Gathering data through interviews helped to achieve Project Objective (1) Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the FWDF, and to answer Research Questions (3) Are there any concerns over the land management practices being carried out on FWDF-secured lands and (4) Where and how could the FWDF partners do more public outreach to ensure people are aware of FWDF land locations, and how these lands are managed? Interviewing individuals who used or lived near FWDF land parcels allowed the researcher to gather detailed information on user access and thoughts on land management practices, as well as any specific concerns these individuals may have towards FWDF conservation areas.

A set of interview questions were constructed in February and March with assistance of the advisory committee, which were then reviewed and revised by other representative members of the FWDF. A semi-structured type of interview was chosen because it provided some structure while still allowing valuable qualitative data to be gathered. The interview guide included a combination of yes/no, list response, and open-ended questions. Having a majority of open-ended questions allowed interview participants to describe their thoughts or experiences in a comprehensive way. Some questions contained prompts or follow-up questions, depending on participant responses. A full list of interview questions can be viewed in Appendix A.

Initial outreach for contact information was done by Matthew Braun and the graduate student. Interviews were then set up by the graduate student, whereby participants were sent an initial recruitment email. A copy of this recruitment email can be viewed in Appendix D. In some cases, interview participants were called, instead of emailed, if they preferred phone communication. Interviews were carried out within the period of May 17th and July 3rd. A total number of 12 interviews were completed; nine in person and three by phone. Phone interviews were carried out where participants made it clear that that was their preference, or where travel to complete an in-person interview was not possible.

Interviews took between 10 and 30 minutes. To begin with, participants read a consent form, which can be viewed in Appendix C. They were asked to answer several questions pertaining to participant confidentiality and the use of direct quotes in this report. They were given the opportunity to choose to review their transcript, review their quotes before the report was handed in, and choose a pseudonym for themselves. A copy of a consent form was left with participants so they could review the information have the contact information of the researchers available to them. The interview was recorded by phone with participant permission. In the case of a phone interview, the consent form was read to the participants before beginning the interview, and a copy was emailed or mailed to them. After the interview, participants were thanked for participating. Arrangements were made for participants to review their transcripts or quotes if they chose to do so. A transcript release form was sent out to those who wished to review their transcripts and quotes, along with the interview transcript and list of quotes that the graduate student wished to use in the final report.

Interview participants Originally, the idea was to identify interviewees who lived in the nine target rural municipalities, as those individuals were likely to be users of FWDF lands in their area. The study area was expanded to include individuals who lived outside these rural municipalities in order to gather more interview contacts. The criteria for interview participants was that they be aware of FWDF lands, and preferably FWDF land users.

Table 2, below, represents the areas of Saskatchewan that interview participants represented, the location of each of those areas within one of the three ecoregions, and the total number of interview participants who represented each of the three ecoregions.

Table2:Locationsofareasofresidenceofinterviewparticipants

Ecoregion Rural municipality or urban area represented

Total number of interview participants who represented this ecoregion

Aspen Parkland Indian Head (2), Maymont 3

Moist Mixed Grassland

Dundurn (2), Saskatoon, Craven, Vanscoy, Outlook, Asquith

7

Boreal Transition Spiritwood (3) 3

Ten individuals lived in rural Saskatchewan at the time of the interview. Three participants lived in urban areas but had some involvement with FWDF areas, for example through hunting, or being a conservation easement or lease holder. No formal analysis was done based on the areas participants represented, however, interviewing individuals from different ecoregions allowed the graduate student to gather a range of perspectives from people from individuals encounter various types of landscapes or ecosystems. Online Survey An online survey of members the public in rural Saskatchewan was used to explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the FWDF (Objective 1), as well as research questions (1) What level of awareness does the public have towards areas that have been secured and managed by the FWDF? And (2) To what extent is the general public using these lands, and for what purposes? The aim in doing the online survey was to gather

information from members of the general public of Saskatchewan and their thoughts towards FWDF land management practices, access, and public awareness. Unlike individual interviews, online survey respondents were not necessarily FWDF land users. By collecting responses from interviews and surveys, the graduate student was able to achieve Project Objective (2) Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices and biodiversity outcomes.

The online survey link was open from May 21 to July 8, 2019 and generated a total number of 35 responses. The survey was set up in such a way that certain questions were skipped depending on respondent answers, so not every participant answered the full questionnaire. Additionally, participants could choose to skip any of the questions in the survey. On average, the survey took just under seven minutes to complete.

A set of survey questions were constructed in February and March with assistance of the advisory committee, which were then reviewed and revised by other representative members of the FWDF. It was decided that the survey would be sent out online in order to include a wider number of participants. An online version of the survey was created using Survey Monkey. Students at the Social Science Research Lab at the University of Saskatchewan assisted in designing the online survey and ensuring that survey questions would generate a useful form of data for analysis. The online survey was tested by several individuals to determine how much time it would take to complete. Types of questions in the online survey were a combination of yes/no, list responses, open-ended, and a Likert-scale, whereby participants indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a particular statement (see Table 10). A total number of 19 questions were included, the full set of which can be viewed in Appendix B.

The first page of the online survey contained information regarding consent, stating that by participating in the survey, respondents are giving consent for that information to be used in aggregate form in reporting and dissemination of study findings. Researcher contact information was also included in the first page of the survey. To begin with, participants were asked whether or not they were aware of FWDF lands in their local area. If they answered ‘yes’ they were directed to a set of specific questions about the FWDF and their land management practices. If they answered ‘no’ they were directed to general questions about conservation so that they were still able to express their thoughts on conservation in Saskatchewan. Near the end of the survey, participants were asked to state which rural municipality they live in, as well as other basic demographic information.

In late May, FWDF representatives from DUC attended a SARM meeting to obtain permission to have the survey sent out through their weekly bulletin. A survey link was sent to SARM along with a short statement of information which was included in their weekly bulletin on May 21, 2019. In mid-June, greater efforts were made to collect more survey responses. The survey link was distributed through the membership lists of the organizations included in the FWDF, as well as the Prairie Conservation Action Plan and Sask Outdoors. Several RM offices were called using the contact information provided on the Municipal Directory System online. Approximately 10 RMs in each of the identified ecoregions were contacted, on the basis of having a high number of FWDF parcels in their area. While many RM offices did not have an online newsletter or bulletin for people in their area, those that did readily agreed to send out the survey link to RM residents.

Survey participantsThe survey included basic demographic questions, asking participants their age, gender, primary source of household income, highest level of completed education, which rural municipality they live in, and how long they had lived in that municipality.

Age: Survey participants represented the following age categories: 25 - 34 (7%), 35 - 44 (11%), 45 - 54 (25%), 55 - 64 (36%) and 64 and above (21%).

Gender: 63% identified as male, and 37% as female.

Education: Survey respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of completed education. 25% of respondents had completed high school. 64% of respondents had completed College or University (undergraduate degree or diploma) and 11% had a Postgraduate degree.

Income: Participants were asked to state their household’s primary source of income. Among those who responded to this question, primary sources of income included agriculture or farming (31%), retirement income (31%), oil and gas (8%), mining (4%), ranching (4%), and other (22%).

Area of residence: Survey respondents were asked to state which rural municipality they lived in. Rural municipalities or urban areas represented, with numbers of respondents, included: Mervin (9), Wreford (4), Pleasantdale (3), Maryfield (2), Biggar (1), Corman Park (1), Insinger (1), Moose Range (1), North Battleford (1), Progress (1), Saskatoon (1), Sliding Hills (1), and South Qu’Appelle (1). Three respondents chose not to state their rural municipality, and six survey respondents skipped this question.

Length of time in current area of residence: Participants were asked how long they had lived in their current rural municipality. The following time periods were represented: 1 - 5 years (14%), 5 - 20 years (46%), 20 - 50 years (29%), and 50 years and above (11%).

Affiliation with a conservation organization: Respondents were asked whether they belonged to, or were a donor of, any of the conservation organizations under the FWDF Land Trust partnership. They were also given the opportunity to list any that were not part of the options stated in the question. The majority of respondents (55%) were not a member or donor of any conservation organization. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation (37%) was most well-represented. Memberships to/donors of other organizations included: Nature Conservancy of Canada (19%), and Ducks Unlimited Canada (15%). Other organizations in which participants were members/donors included Delta Waterfowl, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Assiniboine River Basin Initiative, and the Canadian Ruffed Grouse Society.

Data Analysis Procedures Individual Interviews Interview data was analyzed primarily through coding. Prior to conducting interviews, a set of initial codes (themes) were developed, based on interview questions and potential responses. After each interview, audio recordings were manually transcribed into separate word documents by the graduate student on a personal computer. Interview transcripts were read through again to add to the original set of codes based on actual participant responses. Transcripts were then uploaded in Nvivo 12 and coded. This coding process can be considered to be a combination of deductive coding (themes determined before the data is examined), as well as inductive coding (themes that emerge from the data itself) (Saldaña, 2016). A complete list of the codes can be found in Appendix E. The coding process served several purposes. It allowed for responses to be grouped by general themes or topics brought up in the interview. This made it possible for participant responses to be grouped with other similar responses, making it easier to draw broad generalizations, or in some cases, contrasts in the data.

Next, a crosstab analysis was performed in Nvivo. To do this, each interview participant was assigned a ‘case classification’ - in this instance, land user type. The crosstab analysis allowed participant responses to be grouped within the land user type they were assigned. This method allowed the data to be analyzed from a new angle.

As the data was being analyzed, Selective representative comments were identified and used to strengthen the claims made in the results and discussion sections of this report. A query analysis performed in Nvivo was also used to produce a word cloud. Nvivo was a useful tool for allowing the graduate student to use qualitative data and perform various analyses which rendered qualitative and quantitative, as well as visual, representations of the data.

Online survey Survey Monkey was used to collect, and in some cases, visualize, online survey data. Survey Monkey provided the raw data for the responses to each question, as well as several options for representing those results such as a graph or pie chart. For open ended questions, the data was analyzed manually. Responses were synthesized or summarized for easier analysis and paraphrased for use in tables.

Results The following section provides results of survey and interview data, divided into five sections: (1) survey and interview participants’ use of FWDF lands, (2) public access to FWDF lands, (3) awareness of FWDF lands, (4) land management practices, (5) concerns and suggestions, and (6) conservation in Saskatchewan in a broader sense.

Use of FWDF lands Interview participants were asked if they used FWDF conservation areas, what for, and how often. The following table represents various identifications of interview participants as being part of a particular user group. It should be noted that, in most instances, interview participants could not be clearly defined by one of these categories alone. For example, many described themselves as hunters/fishers as well as sightseers/hikers. Table 3, below, represents the complete list of land user groups or activities among interview participants:

Table3:Varioustypesoflandusesamonginterviewparticipants

Interview participants’ conservation land uses groups/activities

Number of interview participants who identified as being part of this group

Hunters/Fishers 5

Hikers/Sightseers 6

Birdwatchers 4

Photographers 2

Agricultural producers (haying/grazing) 3

Leaseholders/easement holders with one of the organizations within the FWDF

3

Environmental professionals/researchers 2

For simplicity and ease of analysis, interview participants were grouped into one of three categories: (1) hunters and fishers, (2) agricultural producers, and (3) sightseers, birdwatchers and photographers, as being their primarily land use type. As mentioned, some interview subjects fit into more than one of these categories, however, each participant identified primarily as being part of one of these land user types. They are grouped accordingly in Table 4, below:

Table4:Primarylanduseamonginterviewparticipants

Primary land use type: Number of interview participants who identified as being part of this user group:

Hunters/Fishers 5

Agricultural producers 3

Sightseers/Birdwatchers/Photographers 5

The Hunter/fishers group includes those who frequent FWDF lands primarily for personal hunting and fishing. Agricultural producers include those who own cattle and access FWDF lands predominantly for cattle grazing. The sightseers/birdwatchers/photographer group constitutes individuals who access FWDF conservation lands (or in some cases, conservation lands owned and managed by another organization) for personal enjoyment and interest in nature and biodiversity. Respondents of the online survey, too, were asked a few questions about their personal use of conservation areas. Frequency of visitation to conservation areas is expressed in Figure 3, below:

Figure3:Frequencyofvisitationtolocalconservationareasamongsurveyrespondents Those that indicated that they did visit conservation areas were asked what they used conservation areas for, and were given a wide variety of options to choose from and asked to select any option that applied to them (Figure 4):

Figure4:Typesofconservationlandusesamongsurveyrespondents

The most common land use activities included hunting (53%), hiking (53%), and sightseeing (53%). ‘Other’ responses to this question included: mountain biking, snow shoeing, cross country skiing, and horseback riding.

Access to FWDF lands FWDF users access Interview participants were asked if they believed people in the area were aware of FWDF conservation parcels, their location and any land use practices. The majority of interview participants believed that people who lived in the area of FWDF lands were well aware of their existence and purpose. The most important factors that allowed for local awareness included (1) the fact that FWDF parcels could be found on the Rural Municipality map and (2) the fact that small communities of hunters/fishers or agricultural producers keep each other apprised of local land ownership and management practices in their local areas. Interview participants were asked if they were satisfied with their access to FWDF lands, and if there was anything that could be done to improve their ease of access. Among FWDF land users that were interviewed, the vast majority were happy with their personal ease of access to FWDF lands. Two interview participants felt that their personal accessibility was inadequate for specific reasons. One individual expressed the fact that FWDF parcels were surrounded by private lands that were protected by locked gates and so the user had to obtain permission from the surrounding landowners to access the areas (which was sometimes difficult). Another individual expressed dissatisfaction due to the fact that, although there were ample conservation areas around his home available for hunting and fishing purposes, few or none were accessible for grazing or haying. He described the need for some areas to be accessible for such purposes, especially in years of drought.

Public access Interview participants were asked if public access on FWDF should be increased, or not. Responses are expressed in the Table 5 below, divided by land user group. The total percentage of interview participants who responded to each comment is also indicated.

Table5:Interviewparticipantopinionsonpublicaccess,bylandusergroup

Hunters /fishers

Agricultural producers

Sightseers/ photographers/ birdwatchers

% Selective representative comments

Public access to FWDF lands should increase:

2 1 2 38% “Yes, they certainly should be [more frequently accessed]. Its public dollars that buy them through hunting licenses, but these lands can be used for more than hunting.”

NO - Public access on FWDF lands should not increase:

3 1 2 46%

Not sure/neutral 0 2 0 15%

Although the majority of participants agreed that public awareness should be increased, responses were divided on whether public access to these areas should be also increase. The primary reason for concern over increased public access was environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, as expressed by one interview participant:

“…doing some sort of public communications about wildlife lands and the important ecological services that they provide would be worthwhile. Actually increasing public access to wildlife lands is not a high priority for me. Because I think that the human population has appropriated a lot of the earth and we need to have some areas protected with limited access.”

The main reasons for feeling that public access should increase was (1) the idea that wildlife lands in North America are a public asset and should be enjoyed and accessed by all and (2) the idea that underuse of these areas creates a risk for them to be developed or used for a purpose other than conservation. One participant referred to a new trespassing law that will prohibit people from accessing private lands, and believed that FWDF lands will, and should be, more heavily utilized after the law comes into effect. He and other participants mentioned the need for stronger access regulations, clearer designation of where and when FWDF land can be accessed, and that this information be made more readily available to the public. Survey respondents were asked how public access to conservation lands in their area could be improved. Various responses to this open-ended question are indicated in the chart below, with the corresponding number of mentions listed from most to least (Table 6, below).

Table6:Surveyparticipantsuggestionsonincreasingaccesstoconservationareas

Suggestions for increasing public access to conservation lands: Number of mentions:

Better signage (including signs on highways) 8

Advertising 3

More/improved parking areas and access to parking 3

Designated walking trails 2

More conservation areas in general 1

Updated booklet of descriptions and access points (as there used to be) 1

Not sure 3

Alternate points:

These areas should be kept accessible by foot only, road access is not necessary 9

These areas are already adequately accessible 3

The most common points that survey respondents made in regards to improved public access included: better signage, more advertising, and more parking areas that are easier to access. Nine survey respondents expressed the fact that they were in favour of conservation areas being open to foot access only. Three respondents indicated that FWDF and other conservation areas are already adequately accessible, and that no further improvements need to be made.

Public awareness of FWDF lands Interview participants were asked if they believed that the broader general public of Saskatchewan were sufficiently aware of FWDF conservation lands (their locations and land management practices) and able to access them. Responses are expressed in the Table 7, below, divided by land user group. The total percentage of interview participants who responded to each comment is also indicated.

Table7:Interviewparticipantopinionsonpublicawareness,bylandusergroup

Hunters /fishers

Agricultural producers

Sightseers/ photographers/ birdwatchers

% Selective representative comment

YES - The public is sufficiently aware of FWDF lands and land management practices

3 2 1 46% “I think the public that’s interested, and again this is coming from me as a hunter, are aware of which lands are wildlife lands.” “...I would suspect that a lot of people don’t know where these lands are, what they’re used for, and

NO - The public is not sufficiently aware of FWDF lands and land management practices

1 0 2 23%

Not sure/neutral 1 1 2 31% what sort of access limitations, if any, are associated with them.”

One participant expressed the need for more awareness of the FWDF and how it is situated in the broader context of conservation in Saskatchewan:

“I think in general if they want to raise the profile of those lands, make people more aware of how they contribute to the conservation of natural spaces in Saskatchewan then there needs to be more communication and outreach.”

Almost all participants agreed that public awareness of FWDF land locations, access regulations, and land management techniques should be increased. A few participants offered suggestions to increase public awareness. These included: more public communication and outreach, greater use of technology and social media, more signage, and increasing awareness of conservation practices in Saskatchewan in general. The following word cloud was created through data collected from participant responses in answer to the following interview question “what would improve public awareness towards FWDF conservation lands?” This figure (Figure 5) provides a visual representation of the words expressed by participants when answering the aforementioned question. This visualization allows the most frequently mentioned words to be expressed in size roughly proportional to the number of mentions.

Figure5:Wordcloudonimprovingpublicaccess

Online survey respondents, too, were asked how the public could be made more aware of the presence of conservation areas in their locality. The question was open-ended, giving respondents the opportunity to write a sentence or short paragraph on their thoughts. Various responses are indicated in the chart below, with the corresponding number of mentions listed from most to least (Table 8, below).

Table8:Interviewparticipantsuggestionsonincreasingpublicawarenessofconservationareas

Suggestions for increasing public awareness of conservation areas: Number of mentions

Use of social media 6

More signage 6

More printed maps/pamphlets 4

Online maps 4

More advertising in general 4

Information on RM websites (updates, maps, regulations, etc.) 2

Information made available in tourist information centers (pamphlets, maps, etc.). 2

Advertising by each of the FWDF organizations, and other local interest groups 2

Clearer land use and access regulations 1

More information in local newspapers 1

FWDF information booths at local events (fairs, rodeos, etc.) 1

Nature-related events (bird-watching, public education, photography classes, art classes) 1

Word of mouth 1

Alternate points:

The public is already aware of these areas 3

These areas should not be advertised (as advertising uses funds that could be put towards purchasing land, land management, etc.)

2

Most survey respondents listed more than one response to this question. The most frequently mentioned responses included: the use of social media, more signage, more online and printed maps, and more advertising. Three participants expressed the opinion that the public is already sufficiently aware of these areas. Two participants expressed concern over money used for advertising.

Grazing and other land management practices Out of 13 interview participants, nine were able to name a land management technique used by the FWDF. The land management techniques mentioned included grazing and haying, spraying, tree planting, and land/ecological restoration. Of those that were aware of FWDF lands in their local area, all were aware that these lands are open to hunting and fishing access. Three interview participants were not able to name a land management technique used by the FWDF, or were unaware of what constitutes land management. Participants were able to name a few land management techniques employed by other organizations under the FWDF, which included: grazing, haying, land/ecological restoration, tree planting, and seeding of native vegetation. The majority of interviewees were aware of the haying and grazing programs. Four were directly involved in grazing or haying. Interview participants who had been granted grazing access were thankful for their ability to use and access FWDF lands for such purposes. The majority of interview participants who were aware of grazing as a land management technique, but not necessarily directly involved, were in favour of grazing because of the benefit to agricultural producers, as well as other reasons. These are outlined in Table 9, below.

Table9:Interviewparticipantcommentsongrazing

Positive comments on grazing as a land management technique

Number of mentions Selective representative comment

Provides opportunity for producers to feed cattle in drought years

3 “I think it’s an important land management tool. Especially on native pastures. As long as it’s used as a tool, and appropriately. Depending on the species of grass in that area, timely grazing, not overgrazing. And you have to manage that resource to have a healthy ranch.”

Positive economic benefits for producers

3

Defecation provides soil nutrients 3

Important vegetation management tool on native pastures

2

Controls invasive species 1

Weed management 1

Increased animal livelihoods 1

Mitigates fire hazards 1

Generally, interview participants were aware that the use of grazing as a land management technique is something that needs to be properly managed. Most participants were aware of the effects of overgrazing. Some pointed out that the plains bison would have grazed in their area in the past and were in favour of cattle grazing for that reason. Those directly involved in grazing management were aware of, and expressed gratitude for, the fact that the FWDF employs sound management practices to ensure that grazing was beneficial to producers but also sustainable in an environmental management sense. As part of the online survey, respondents were asked to provide their thoughts on various land management practices used by the FWDF. They were given a list of five management techniques (grazing, haying, timber harvesting, weed control, and no management) and ask to indicate their agreement using a Likert scale-type response (Table 10). This is also expressed in a bar graph (Figure 6) for greater visualization.

Table10:Opinionsonvariouslandmanagementpracticesbysurveyrespondents

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Not Sure

Grazing 11% (3) 7% (2) 36% (10) 29% (8) 18% (5) 0

Haying 14% (4) 14% (4) 29% (8) 25% (7) 18% (5) 0

Timber harvesting 25% (7) 32% (9) 11% (3) 14% (4) 7% (2) 11%

Weed control (spraying)

36% (10) 21% (6) 7% (2) 14% (4) 14% (4) 7%

No management activity

11% (3) 29% (8) 32% (9) 14% (4) 4% (1) 11%

Figure6:Bargraphexpressingopinionsonvariouslandmanagementtechniquesbysurveyrespondents

After responding to the Likert chart, survey respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments on their thoughts or attitudes towards the land management practices previously mentioned. Comments from the survey were paraphrased and simplified for use in the Tables 11- 14, below, and divided roughly by sentiment. Comments are listed in point form, in no particular order.

Table11:Commentsongrazingfromsurveyrespondents

Comments on grazing as a land management technique

Positive perceptions Neutral/other Negative perceptions

• Grazers are part of the • Some lands may • Overgrazing is an concern

prairie and parkland ecosystems

• It is good for the grassland • It is good when

conservative stocking rates are used

• Scientifically-managed grazing is a valuable tool

• Improves pasture health • Regenerates the landscape • Allows for successional

growth and prevents lands from growing up

• Allows for diverse FWDF lands

• Facilitates high productivity lands and prevents over-maturity in aspen stands

• Allows for proliferation of biodiversity and ecosystem services

• Controls weeds

benefit from a season of grazing, but not yearly

• Ensure cattle do not graze on native grasslands prior to June

• If there is a drought, grazing should be delayed until after June

• Cattle can do damage to trees and brush if they are allowed to overgraze

• Clear-cutting and removal of trees and bluffs to facilitate grazing, haying, and cropland farming is an issue

• Land should be left in its most natural state

Opinions were divided on the use of grazing as a land management technique. The comments above indicate that survey participants stated many potential benefits of grazing, including weed control and landscape regeneration. Several respondents pointed out that grazing played an important historic role in grassland ecosystems. Many individuals expressed concern over the potential for overgrazing, and the need for proper management and regulations, such as time of year and stocking rates.

Table12:Commentsonhayingfromsurveyrespondents

Comments on haying as a land management technique

Positive perceptions Neutral/other Negative perceptions

• Controls tree growth • Provides weed control • Prevents hay from going

to waste • Animals won’t graze the

entire area • Great in times of drought • Keeps parcel from

accumulating too much woody vegetation

• Provides positive economic benefits

• Should not be done year after year on the same piece of land

• Should be done only after June 15

• It is ok, but grazing is better

• It is good as long as fences are wildlife friendly or just temporary

• Lands need to be allowed to rejuvenate

• This management tool can be abused

• Landscapes did not evolve with haying and the associated equipment

• Can negatively impact native grassland

• Nutrients are exported • Can negatively impact

nesting migratory birds • These lands should not be

used for economic purposes • The use of vehicles and

equipment is disruptive to the environment

Several respondents were able to name potential positive environmental effects of grazing, such as weed control, and prevention of woody overgrowth, as well as economic benefits to producers. Concerns over haying included the impacts on grassland vegetation and migratory birds. As with grazing, many individuals stressed the fact that haying needs to be properly managed, and factors such as time of year, intensity, and use of equipment and vehicles, are important to consider.

Table13:Commentsontimberharvestingfromsurveyrespondents

Comments on timber harvesting as a land management technique

Positive perceptions Neutral/other Negative perceptions

• Helps manage fire risk • Judicious when done

correctly and when properly managed

• Mature stands of trees may benefit from thinning or selective removal

• Helpful in certain areas where fire does not occur

• Decision making should be scientifically based

• Should be used as a rejuvenation tool

• Should only be used where fire is not a viable alternative

• Ensure recent cut-blocks are accessed by foot only

• Should only be used to maintain a healthy stand of trees

• Should only be done along with strict controls and

• Reforestation should be a requirement

• Is too often used indiscriminately

• Clear cutting can lead to soil erosion, high water tables

• Can lead to loss of habitat

• Potential for negative effects on song birds and wildlife

• Roads for vehicles disrupt wildlife movement patterns

Positive comments towards timber harvesting were mostly expressed with regards to fire risk mitigation. Respondents’ concerns were mainly attributed to potential habitat losses, negative impact on birds, as well as soil erosion and other potential detriments to the environment. Again, respondents stressed the need for science-based management and applying the practice of timber harvesting frugally to ensure the health of the ecosystem.

Table14:Commentsonsprayingforweedcontrolfromsurveyrespondents

Comments on weed control (spraying) as a land management technique

Positive perceptions Neutral/other Negative perceptions

• It is a necessary • Should only be used to • Has unintended

management tool • It is required to control

noxious and invasive species

• More emphasis should be placed on spraying out noxious weeds before they get out of hand

control invasive, noxious weeds, introduced, or harmful species

• People directly involved should have the necessary qualifications (Applicator’s certificate and strong plant ID skills)

• Should be used with extra caution in areas of native prairie

consequences • Is not necessary • Other sound land

management techniques can reduce the need for spraying

• Chemicals pose risk to human and wildlife health

• Potentially harmful to biodiversity

The majority of respondents agreed to varying amounts, with the idea of spraying, but should be used minimally and only when invasive or harmful species needed to be controlled. A few respondents expressed their concerns over the potential harmful effects to wildlife and humans, and that caution should be taken.

Survey respondents were asked if they were aware of any land management practices not listed above, that various conservation organizations use. 78% indicated that they were not aware of any other land management techniques, while 21% indicated that they were aware of other land management techniques. The land management practices mentioned included: the use of fire/controlled burning (3 responses), wildlife management (1 response) restoring wetlands (1 response), biocontrol to minimize invasive species (1 response), temporary road closures to minimize rutting on trails (1 response), and the use of livestock protection dogs to minimize predation on cattle (1 response).

Concerns and suggestions During individual interviews, participants were given the opportunity to express any concerns they had over various land management practices used by the FWDF, or concerns about conservation in a more general sense. General areas of concern pertained to: grazing, public access, private access, road and vehicle access, and general concerns over conservation, and are outlined in Table 15 below:

Table15:InterviewparticipantconcernsaboutconservationareasType of Concern

Specific concern Suggestion for change/improvement by interview participants

Public access If public access increases, the environment will be degraded

Restrict or keep foot traffic and public access to a minimum in these areas, make biodiversity conservation the imperative

FWDF lands should be more widely used by the public, or else they will be developed for other purposes

Greater public outreach efforts should be carried out

Private access Individuals have to go through locked and fenced private lands to access FWDF lands

Conservation land managers should engage in discussions with surrounding landowners to arrange for land users to pass through at certain times of the year

It can be difficult to keep cattle off land designated for hunting

More patrolling of FWDF lands, stronger enforcement of rules regulations with regards to access, more signage

Road and vehicle access

Snowmobiles and ATVs are being used on certain FWDF lands that are marked as off limits to vehicles

More frequent patrolling of these areas, harsher reinforcement of vehicle access regulations

Broader conservation practices

FWDF parcels and other conservation lands are isolated and cut off from each other

Greater efforts should be made to conserve larger conservation areas and to increase connectivity, in both FWDF lands and lands managed by other conservation organizations

Many concerns were specific to the participant and the area they lived in. A few concerns, such as increase in public access, and road and vehicle access, were mentioned by more than two interview participants. Many interview participants voluntarily offered suggestions for land uses or activities that they would like to see be added or increased on FWDF lands. Some of these were specific land uses or activities, and others were broader conservation practices. These are expressed in full in Table 16, below:

Table16:Interviewparticipantsuggestionsforalternativelandusepractices/activitiesInterview participants would like to see an increase in the following activities on FWDF lands

Number of mentions Selective representative comments

Scientific studies (soil, plant, bird surveys, studies to assess land management practices)

4 “I think that there is a potential for them to be used as research sites for evaluating land management practices which would help them meet their goals. If their goal is indeed to conserve biodiversity and to maintain a healthy environment, then some research assessing their land management practices’ effectiveness in reaching those goals would make sense to me.” “They can be used by school groups on nature hikes, berry pickers, nature photographers, and yes, the one caveat is that they should only be accessed on foot.”

Education and public outreach projects

3

Use of technology (drones, trail cameras) for educational purposes as well as scientific studies

2

Other land management activities (controlled burning)

2

Ecological restoration (tree-planting) 2

Preservation of riparian areas 1

Overwhelmingly, interview participants mentioned the need for greater connectivity of conservation parcels in Saskatchewan, FWDF areas inclusive. Interview participants named several benefits to

preserving large, contiguous areas, which included: protection of natural habitat, ease of travel for animals, protection of endangered species populations, conservation of biodiversity in general, more total area protected, and more protection of riparian zones. Online survey respondents, too, were given the opportunity to express any further comments on FWDF conservation lands, or other conservation lands in Saskatchewan. This question was also open-ended. Responses are summarized in Table 17, below. This table is divided into three sections: Positive perceptions, Concerns, and Suggestions that survey respondents had.

Table17:Comments,concerns,suggestionsonconservationlandsfromsurveyrespondents

Comments on conservation lands in Saskatchewan in general

Positive perceptions Concerns Suggestions

• Conservation lands are valued immensely

• Conservation lands play an important role in the patchwork of private lands in Saskatchewan

• I wish there were more conservation areas

• I appreciate them immensely and the ecosystem services they provide

• Conservation organizations do very important work

• Conservation lands are essential to the survival of many creatures and organisms

• I wish more people would see the value in biodiversity

• Islands of biodiversity are very isolated and valuable

• We need to ensure there are more, larger areas of conservation lands

• Recent increase in development around lakes is a concern

• There should be more restrictions on the use of vehicles

• There should be regulations that prevent private landowners from clear-cutting bluffs, which are important for erosion control, biodiversity and wildlife habitat, etc.

• There should be more government management of wildlife habitat

• Only qualified individuals should be involved in decision making

• All management decisions should benefit wildlife first, economic outcomes should be secondary

• Grasslands should be the major focus of conservation efforts in Saskatchewan

Survey respondents commented on many aspects of conservation, being specific as well as more general. Several individuals mentioned the need for more conservation areas in general, and greater appreciation for the biodiversity they harbour. Many expressed gratitude for conservation lands in Saskatchewan and the work that conservation organizations do.

Conservation in Saskatchewan and other comments Interview participants were asked if they’d like to make any further comments about other conservation organizations in Saskatchewan, or conservation in general. Many expressed appreciation for the science-based management approach that conservation organizations in Saskatchewan currently employ. A few mentioned the need to consult with a broad range of experts when making management decisions:

“I think because of that they need to have a very strategic approach, identify what the purpose is, why that land is there in the first place, and align that with the responsibilities and priorities of the province

and be very transparent about what those priorities are and then consult with folks that actively do management on the ground - everyone from producers to range ecologists, land managers, and then come up with an integrated framework for managing those parcels in part, depending on what type of landscape they’re embedded in.”

Many recognized that conservation practices are continually evolving, and that the FWDF and other conservation organizations in Saskatchewan are embracing these changes in their operations and land management techniques.

“I think they do a good job and they do a valuable service to the country as a whole. We’ve started a long way behind so to speak, because there was very little interest in conserving, other than things that were at the national park scale….Native grasslands and parklands were not seen as being a resource in a sense, they were only seen to have value after you broke them and used them for agricultural purposes. We’re learning that that was not a good thing. I guess it was just a natural reaction, trying to make the land produce in certain way. But it was already very productive, in its own way.”

In general, interview participants were happy with the ways that FWDF were used and managed, and appreciative of the organizations involved in FWDF operations. Survey respondents as well, were asked a few questions about conservation in a broader sense, and their personal relationship to, or thoughts on, conservation in Saskatchewan. They were asked how important conservation areas were to them. The breakdown of responses is indicated in Figure 7 below:

Figure7:Importanceofconservationareastosurveyrespondents

77% of respondents indicated that conservation areas were ‘very important’ to them, 17% indicated that they were of somewhat importance, 3% said ‘a little important’, and 3% responded with ‘I don’t know.’ No survey respondents chose the option ‘conservation lands are not important at all.’

Next, survey respondents were provided the statement, ‘Conservation lands are important to you because they provide...’, and were given the opportunity to choose any or all of any of the following

options indicated in Figure 8 below, as well as to fill in their own response. The options and corresponding descriptions provided in the table included: Ecosystem services (such as improved air quality, erosion control, carbon storage, etc.), Economic opportunities (such as haying and grazing), Recreational opportunities (such as hiking, sightseeing, bird watching, etc.), Preservation of biodiversity, and Aesthetic value.

Figure8:Reasonsforimportanceofconservationareas

Five survey respondents described ‘other’ reasons why conservation areas were important to them. These included: habitat and protection for wildlife, the intrinsic value of the ecosystem itself, a buffer from loss of other habitat or ecologically significant areas, and a place that minimizes the negative effects of agriculture on wildlife.

Discussion One of the main topics of discussion in surveys and interviews was public access and awareness to FWDF conservation areas (or areas owned and managed by other conservation organizations). Pertaining to public awareness, project participants were roughly divided in half in their belief that the public was aware of the locations of conservation lands, land management practices, and how to access them. In general, project participants believed that the public in their local areas were aware of FWDF lands, but the wider public of Saskatchewan were not. Project participants were also divided in their opinions on whether public access to conservation areas should be increased. In general, individuals who made up the hunter/fisher land user groups appreciated the fact that conservation areas open for hunting and fishing were relatively underutilized.

In surveys and interviews, participants were asked how the public could be made more aware of FWDF conservations and better able to access them. The most frequently mentioned factors that would result in greater public awareness and access to these areas were: use of social media, more signage on site and on the highway, maps (printed and online), and more advertising (RM websites, tabling at local events, tourist information centres). Almost all project participants were concerned about the use of motor vehicles and were happy with them being foot-accessible only. Only a few participants expressed the opinion that the use of snowmobiles and ATVs should be allowed. Some project participants expressed concern over access violations to FWDF lands. Many individuals expressed the opinion that these areas should be more frequently patrolled, and that access regulations should be made clearer through signage and advertising. A few project participants were somewhat unclear on what constituted land management and were unfamiliar with various land management practices. However, most participants were generally aware of what management techniques were being applied in their local area. Among those who expressed their opinions on various land management techniques, almost all were in favour of some land management. Many individuals wanted to see land management techniques used minimally, for reasons such as invasive species control, reduction of fire hazard, etc. The land management technique that captured the most concern was timber harvesting. Concerns over the intensity of land management techniques included: general environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, loss of habitat (nesting birds and songbirds were frequently mentioned), soil erosion, and human health concerns. Although many of the project participants were aware of certain land management techniques, many seemed unsure as to exactly what the FWDF does to ensure environmentally sound land management. Many participants expressed the need for scientific studies to ensure land management did not compromise the health of the local ecosystem, and were unsure of which studies were currently being done, or had already been completed. A minority of participants felt that the land should be left alone and no management techniques should be employed. Many project participants recognized the fact that grazing was important in helping shape the landscape, historically, and were in favour of its use for that reason. There were some concerns about grazing in the aspen parkland ecoregion and areas of native grassland, and how this might affect the local ecosystem and wildlife. As with other land management practices discussed in this project, participants stressed the need for sound, scientifically-based decisions in land management and were concerned over intensity and over use of any given technique. Of those who were familiar with the FWDF haying and grazing programs, over half were in favour of haying or grazing for the benefit of local agricultural producers. A minority of participants believed that economic opportunities such as haying and grazing should not be taken advantage of on conservation lands. In general, project participants believed that more and larger areas should be set aside for conservation, and that there should be greater connectivity within those areas. Participants were divided on whether, and to what extent, human activities should be allowed in conservation areas. While some participants believed that conservation areas should be left completely alone, most were in favour of management practices used minimally to control weeds, overgrowth, invasive species, etc. Most were in favour of using these areas to the advantage of local producers, and that haying and grazing opportunities should be taken advantage of when needed. Overwhelmingly, participants appreciated scientifically-informed land management under current operation and stressed the need for experts and a multiplicity of stakeholders to be involved in management decisions. Participants also offered alternative land use

practices or activities that they thought could or should be practiced on FWDF conservation lands including: educational opportunities, nature-related events and public outreach, and scientific studies that were internal and external to the FWDF.

Project Limitations There are four main limitations of the project that should be taken into consideration. The first limitation was the time frame of the project. The structure of the MSEM program is such that the time frame to focus solely on the project runs for three months. The particular objectives and research questions for this project may have been better answered if the graduate student had more time to gather data and put more time and effort into data analyses. The second limitation was the sample size and characteristics of the individuals who participated in surveys and interview questionnaires. A limited amount of contact information, as well as general time constraints, meant that the graduate student could not choose individuals who represented the general population of Saskatchewan in terms of demographics. Notably, there were a lack of indigenous participants and perspectives in surveys and interviews. Additionally, it was the original ambition to choose interviewees who represented the various types of FWDF land users equally as well as being affiliated with/members of the three FWDF conservation NGOs somewhat equally. While efforts were made to gather a broad range of perspectives from different land user groups in different areas of Saskatchewan, it is possible that the results may be biased by the fact that this was not fully achieved. The third limitation is the qualitative research design and methods of the project. This type of project design means that the quality of the research depends on the researcher’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. While the researcher had previous experience writing academic papers and reports, it was their first time managing a project from start to finish that included engaging in data collection. Therefore, the ability of the researcher to make recommendations to the FWDF may be limited in some ways. Related to this was a limitation that came up during data collection. A few project participants were not able to identify between conservation lands managed by various organizations under the FWDF, as well as differences in land management practices and land access regulations. In some cases, project participants could not answer all the interview or survey questions specifically about the FWDF, but could speak to another conservation organization’s lands. Because of this, responses were limited in some ways and it is difficult to tease part the comments and opinions made about the FWDF, and the Land Trust partners that provide management of FWDF lands. A fourth limitation was that there were some challenges in having many people involved in the project representing the four partner organizations of the FWDF. It was difficult for the partner organization representative to communicate with everyone involved and gather a coherent and concise opinion from all individuals involved when deciding what they wanted out of the project.

Recommendations The following recommendations respond to widely-expressed participant concerns, and general observations that made by the graduate student during the course of the project. The following five recommendations incorporate a broad range of techniques, employing the use of social science, hard science, and technological methods that involve a broad range of stakeholders to ensure meaningful results. These are (1) make scientific study results more presentable and accessible, (2) conduct multi-

stakeholder focus groups, (3) provide clarity in public access and public land use regulations, (4) designate a team or person for public outreach purposes, and (5) improve online information and use GIS to produce interactive maps with multiple pieces of information. These recommendations made to the FWDF encourage them to employ various public outreach strategies to ensure that the opinions of both FWDF land users and the general public are taken into consideration in terms of land management practices and wider decision-making. In many ways, these initiatives have the potential to work in tandem with ensuring that biodiversity conservation outcomes are achieved.

Presentation and accessibility of scientific study results While many project participants were in favour of certain land management techniques being used conservatively, concerns were expressed over the potential for these techniques to be misused or overused. Moreover, many project participants expressed interest in more scientific studies (soil, vegetation, land management effect on wildlife, etc.) to be performed to ensure that land management practices are aligned with environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Although participants seemed aware of the scientific basis behind the decision making process among conservation organizations in Saskatchewan, it can be assumed that they did not know how to access information that pertains specifically to the land management practices in question. The FWDF should compile results of any studies already done on land management practices of concern, and ensure these are complete. The results of such studies should be made available to the public online on the FWDF website in a way that is easily understood and presented in an interesting and informative manner. This way, concerned parties can readily access this information, and concerns over land management techniques can be minimized.

Multi-stakeholder focus groups Results of this project show that individuals access and use FWDF conservation areas for various reasons. Additionally, these land user groups have varying opinions in regards to personal accessibility, public accessibility and awareness, land management practices, and more. Facilitating a focus group with representatives from each of these FWDF land user groups (such as those outlined in Figure 4) would allow the FWDF to explore the answers to an array of questions, including the research questions used in this report, in greater depth. Each focus group member would provide a unique perspective as an FWDF land user, which would help to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of public perceptions, advance decision making that is of benefit to a number of people, and ensure that decisions align with land use perspectives. Additionally, stakeholder groups would foster discussion and understanding among different land user groups.

Clarity in public access and public land use regulations Results from this project suggest that while some individuals believe that public access should be increased, some believe that public access should be limited. Additionally, many survey and interview respondents suggested alternative land use practices and activities that they would like to see brought to the fore on FWDF conservation lands. The organizations that make up the FWDF should collaborate and discuss the topic of public access and where, if any, advancements should be made to increase public access. Moreover, they should explore the following questions:

Which areas of Saskatchewan are best to employ which land use or land management practices/activities? Which land practices/land use activities would be of the most benefit in which local contexts?

The local context may pertain to the type of environment or ecosystem in that area and which land management techniques would be of benefit or detriment to that area. The local context may also refer to the socio-economic and demographic make-up of the area, such as which user groups are found

there and where more opportunities for haying and grazing are needed. For example, if more agricultural producers exist in the area, perhaps more opportunities for haying and grazing could be facilitated. If there is little interest in haying or grazing in an area, alternative land use techniques or activities could be taken into consideration that would benefit residents in the area.

Hunter and agricultural producers groups expressed the opinion that FWDF lands were well known to people in the local area. If the goal is in fact to increase public access to these areas for other purposes (sightseeing, birdwatching, photography, and general enjoyment of nature), greater effort should be made to reach out to these user groups. This would include clearer information on what each parcel is used for, when they are accessible and when they are not, better online information on the location of the parcels, and more signage from the highway. An increase in access for these user groups would also require carrying out more of the programs or activities suggested by project participants (bird-watching and photography classes, educational opportunities for younger individuals, etc.) which would introduce new users to FWDF lands and foster opportunities for learning about biodiversity.

Designated public outreach person The FWDF could hire an individual or small team of people to be in charge of public outreach, specifically, communicating with various land users and making sure necessary information is accessible online and offline. This person or team could be involved in examining public access and awareness and putting into practice some of the suggestions that project participants had, such as the use of social media, creation and distribution of maps and information pamphlets, and advertising. A public outreach person could also examine various local contexts in areas with FWDF parcels and help communicate with those who wish to take advantage of the grazing and haying programs, and follow through with these individuals throughout the process. This individual or team could be in charge of ensuring that land use practices are fit to achieve a balance among conservation, agricultural, and other land uses. Ultimately, this initiative could help to ensure a bridge in communication between the public and the FWDF. Online information and use of GIS Many of the participants in this project expressed the need for more information on FWDF land locations, land uses, and management practices. The use of GIS could be employed to create a map of FWDF parcels in Saskatchewan that is interactive and informative. This map could provide additional information on land use practices and activities in operation under FWDF management. This could provide clearer designation of what FWDF lands are used for and what sorts of opportunities are available for various user groups. Additional information could include details on land management activities and the scientific basis behind them, and more information on the role of hunting and fishing on conservation lands. It would be helpful if this map and information could be created in tandem with other conservation organizations who own and manage areas in Saskatchewan. Having this information available would help to increase public awareness of conservation organizations, their lands, and the wider value of biodiversity. The FWDF partners should also take into consideration that not everyone uses or has the ability to access the internet and/or social media, so measures should to be taken to get information out to people through other means.

Conclusion The purpose of this project was to assess public attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) lands and land management practices in Saskatchewan. The objectives of this project were to

(1) Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the FWDF, and (2) Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices. These objectives, as identified by the FWDF Land Trust partners, were intended to contribute to improvements in biodiversity outcomes in Saskatchewan. The methods for this project were to conduct semi-structured interviews with individuals who use FWDF lands, as well as an online survey of the general public of Saskatchewan. Surveys and interviews explored various aspects of FWDF lands, including personal access, public access and awareness, land management techniques, and more. These qualitative methods provided in-depth and detailed information from individuals who use and are aware of FWDF lands to varying degrees. Project participants offered a broad range of opinions on FWDF lands. The information gathered allowed the graduate student to answer each of the research questions to varying degrees and achieve the two main project objectives. A set of recommendations were made to the FWDF to further engage in public outreach and improve availability and access to information. This project serves as a step in assisting the FWDF Land Trust partners to explore public perceptions in greater depth, and has identified areas in need of further research.

Gathering information on public attitudes and perspectives provides information for land managers and conservation organizations when making decisions and working towards policy action. Engaging in public involvement and taking time to listen to the perceptions of individuals is an important social aspect of all conservation initiatives. FWDF lands make an important contribution to the total area of conserved lands in Saskatchewan, and contribute to Canada’s goal to conserve 17% of terrestrial areas and in land water by 2020. Not only are they spaces for biodiversity to flourish and ecosystem services to proliferate, they provide opportunities for people to enjoy nature, hunt, fish, or take advantage of the chance to hay or graze their animals. They serve a variety of purposes and are important to local culture and economies.

References

Bloom, P., Howerter, D., Emery, R., & Armstrong, L. (2013). Relationships between grazing and

waterfowl production in the Canadian prairies. Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(3), 534-544.

Brown, T., Bergstrom, J., & Loomis, J. (2007). Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and

services. Natural Resources Journal, 47(2), 329-376.

Ducks Unlimited Canada. (2018). 2018 Annual Report: Great migrations: Celebrating 80 years of

conservation excellence. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Stonewall, Manitoba. Retrieved from

https://www.ducks.ca/assets/2018/08/AR-2018-FINAL.pdf

Ducks Unlimited Canada. (2019). Saskatchewan. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Stonewall, Manitoba.

Retrieved from https://www.ducks.ca/places/saskatchewan/

Ducks Unlimited Canada. (n.d.). Conserving wetlands & waterfowl: Science, research, and a strong

biological foundation. Retrieved from https://www.ducks.org/conservation/how-du-conserves-

wetlands-and-waterfowl

Edwards, P.J., & Abivardi. C. (1998). The value of biodiversity: Where ecology and economy blend.

Biological Conservation, 83(3), 239-246.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2018). Canadian environmental sustainability indicators:

Canada's conserved areas. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

Retrieved from

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cesindicators/canada-conserved-

areas/2019/conserved-areas-en.pdf

Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FDWF). (n.d.). About the FDWF. Retrieved from

https://fwdf.ca/about/

Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF). (n.d.). “Grazing Program Operational Guidelines.”

Retrieved from https://fwdfdotca.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/fwdf-grazing-program-

operational-guidelines-2019-4-29.pdf

Gleason, R.A., Euliss, N.H., Tangen, B.A., Laubhan, M.K., & Browne, B.A. (2011). USDA conservation

program and practice effects on wetland ecosystem services in the Prairie Pothole Region.

Ecological Applications, 21(3), S65-S81.

Government of Saskatchewan. (n.d.). Fish and wildlife development fund. Retrieved from

https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/parks-culture-heritage-and-sport/hunting-trapping-

and-angling/fish-and-wildlife-development-fund

Henderson, N. (1992). Wilderness and the nature conservation ideal: Britain, Canada, and the United

States contrasted. Ambio, 21(6), 394-399.

Junge, X., Jacot, K.A., Bosshard, A, & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2009). Swiss people's attitudes towards

field margins for biodiversity conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 17(3), 150-159.

Mineau, P., & McLaughlin, A. (1996). Conservation of biodiversity within Canadian agricultural

landscapes: Integrating habitat for wildlife. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,

9(2), 93-113.

Ministry of Environment. (2018). Ministry of environment annual report for 2017-2018. Government of

Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/15/107655-2017-

18EnvironmentAnnualReport.pdf

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2018a). Saskatchewan: Pasqua Lake. Nature Conservancy of Canada,

Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-

work/saskatchewan/featured-projects/pasqua-lake.html

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2018b). Our Story. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/who-we-are/our-story/

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2018c). 2017-2018 Annual Report. Nature Conservancy of Canada,

Toronto Ontario. Retrieved

from http://www.natureconservancyreport.ca/en/programs/conservation-planning-and-

stewardship-program/

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2017). Conservation impact through partnership: The natural areas

conservation program. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from

http://www.natureconservancy.ca/assets/documents/nat/nacp/170830_NCC-Impact-2017-EN-

FINALonline.pdf

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019a). Where we work: FAQs. Nature Conservancy of Canada,

Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/where-we-

work/manitoba/faqs.html

Nature Conservancy of Canada. (2019b). Glossary: Conservation agreement. Nature Conservancy of

Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-

do/resource-centre/glossary/conservation_agreement.html

Pretty, J., & Smith, D. (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation

Biology, 18(3), 631-638.

Reed, M. (2007). Uneven environmental management: A Canadian perspective. Environmental

Management, 39(1), 30-49.

Riley, J. L., Green, S.E., & Brodribb, K.E. (2007). A conservation blueprint for Canada's prairies and

parklands. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved from

http://support.natureconservancy.ca/pdf/blueprints/Prairies_and_Parklands.pdf?_ga=2.1173116

85.2104195886.1548612450-1261750767.1548612450

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. (2017). Strategic plan 2017-2022. Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation,

Moosejaw, Saskatchewan. Retrieved from https://swf.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-

2022-SWF-Strategic-Plan-Objectives.pdf

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. (2019a). Programs. Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Moosejaw,

Saskatchewan. Retrieved from https://swf.sk.ca/programs/

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. (2019b). Who we are. Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Moosejaw,

Saskatchewan. Retrieved from https://swf.sk.ca/who-we-are/

Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation. (2019c). Conservation easements. Saskatchewan Wildlife

Federation, Moosejaw, Saskatchewan. Retrieved from

https://swf.sk.ca/programs/conservation-easements/

Thorpe, J., Wolfe, S.A., & Houston, B. (2008). Potential impacts of climate change on grazing capacity

of native grasslands in the Canadian prairies. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 88(4), 595-609.

U.N. Environment. (n.d.). Convention on biological diversity: Key elements of the strategic plan 2011-

2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/sp/elements/

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). Grazing economics: Conservation solutions

for your Pennsylvania farm. Retrieved

from https://www.swprojectgrass.com/uploads/3/4/0/7/34076298/grazing_economics_final.pdf

Appendix A – Semi-structured Interview Guide

This interview is being conducted for a University of Saskatchewan research project entitled, “Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) land management practices in Saskatchewan.”

Interview Questions

• Are you aware of any conservation lands in your local area? Prompt: Are you aware of who owns and manages these parcels of land?

• Do you access or make use of the lands owned and managed by the FWDF or other conservation

organizations? Prompts: How often? What for? If not, why?

• What can you tell me about some of the land management techniques/practices used by FWDF?

• What are your thoughts on these land management techniques? What, in your opinion, could be

done to improve the way that these lands are managed? • (If applicable) What would enable you and other members of your group/association to better

access and use these lands?

• In your opinion, is the public sufficiently aware of these lands and how to access them? Prompts: Should they be made more aware? How might that be accomplished? How might public access be improved? OR Should public access be restricted? If so, why?

• Do you have other comments to make about the FWDF, or the way that their lands are used and

managed?

• Do you have any comments or questions with regards to this interview?

Appendix B – Survey Questionnaire The purpose of this study is to assess the attitudes of the public towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund lands and land management practices in Saskatchewan. Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) lands are managed to provide the best possible wildlife habitat year-round for the greatest number of species. Over 1200 parcels of land totaling almost 170,000 acres are held in conservation through the FWDF, and are open to the public for a variety of activities. For more information visit https://fwdf.ca/ By participating in this research, you are allowing the researcher to gather a wide range of perspectives on

FWDF conservation lands. This information will be used to identify where improvements can be made in how these lands are used and accessed, as well explore ways in which in which FWDF conservation lands and management practices could be better aligned with the public’s values and perspectives. The information will be presented to FWDF members, and will assist them in working towards their goal of improving biodiversity conservation in Saskatchewan. Your participation is greatly appreciated. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and you are welcome to withdraw at any time. The information supplied will be kept confidential and all survey responses are kept anonymous. By answering and completing the survey questions, you as the the respondent are giving consent for that information to be used in aggregate form in reporting and dissemination of study findings. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact the researcher: Jory Cadman Master of Sustainable Environmental Management Candidate School of Environment and Sustainability (306) 491-5887 jkc144@usask.ca This research project has been approved on ethical grounds by the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board (ID #1050). Any questions regarding your rights as a participant may be addressed to that committee through the Research Ethics Office ethics.office@usask.ca (306) 966-2975. Out of town participants may call toll free (888) 966-2975. Thank you!

1. Are you aware of any conservation lands in your local area? (Conservation lands are areas that are owned and managed by a conservation organization to preserve biodiversity and natural resources.) a, No b. Yes

2. Are you aware of who owns/manages these lands? (Please check all that apply). a. Fish and Wildlife Development land trust (FWDF) b. Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation c. Nature Conservancy of Canada d. Ducks Unlimited Canada e. do not know f. other (please specify)

3. How often do you visit the conservation lands in your area? a. I have never visited conservation lands in my area b. once a year or less c. 1-5 times a year d. 6-10 times per year e. once a month or more

4. What do you use these lands for? (Please check all that apply) a. Hunting

b. Fishing c. Hiking d. Sightseeing e. Birdwatching f. Photography g. Grazing or haying h. Indigenous traditional use i. other (please specify)

5. How could the public be made more aware of the presence of these conservation areas?

6. What would improve public access to conservation lands managed by the FWDF or other conservation organizations?

7. How important are conservation lands to you?

a. Very important b. Somewhat important c. A little important d. Not important at all e. I don’t know

8. Conservation lands are important to you because they provide... (please check all that

apply) a. Ecosystem services (such as improved air quality, erosion control, carbon storage, etc.) b. Economic opportunities (such as haying and grazing) c. Recreational opportunities (such as hiking, sightseeing, bird watching, etc.) d. Preservation of biodiversity e. Aesthetic value f. other (please specify)

9. To what extent do you agree with use of each of the following land management

practices on FWDF lands? (strongly agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly disagree/not sure) a, grazing b. haying c. timber harvesting d. spraying (weed control) e. no management

10. Please provide any further comments on your thoughts towards the following land

management practices: a. grazing b. haying c. timber harvesting d. spraying (weed control)

11. Are you aware of any land management practices not listed above, that conservation

organizations use? a. no b. Yes (please specify)

12. Are you a member/donor of any of the following conservation organizations in

Saskatchewan? (please check all that apply) a. Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation b. Nature Conservancy of Canada c. Ducks Unlimited Canada d. none of the above e. other (please specify)

13. What is your age? a. under 18 b. 18-24 c. 25-34 d. 35-44 e. 45-54 f. 55-65 g. 65 and above

14. Please state your gender

15. Pleas state your household’s primary source of income.

16. Please indicate your highest level of completed education.

a. Primary school b. High school c. College/University - undergraduate or diploma d. Postgraduate e. other (please specify)

17. In which rural municipality do you live?

18. How long have you lived in your current rural municipality?

19. Do you have any further comments to make about FWDF lands, or conservation lands in general?

Appendix C – Consent form for interviews

School of Environment and

Sustainability

117 Science Place Saskatoon, SK S7N 5C8

E-mail: icc279@mail.usask.ca This consent form, a copy of which will be left with you for your records and reference, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here, you should feel free to ask. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand any accompanying information. You are invited to participate in a research study entitled: “Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund Lands and land management practices in Saskatchewan.” Researcher: Jory Cadman, School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan [jkc144@usask.ca | 306-491-5887] Supervisors: Dr. James Robson Assistant Professor at the School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 336 Kirk Hall, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5C8 Phone: (306) 966-1017 Email: james.robson@usask.ca Dr. Kenneth Belcher Professor at the College of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 3D22, Agriculture Building, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A8 Phone: (306) 966-4019 Email: ken.belcher@usask.ca Purpose(s) and Objective(s) of the Research: The purpose of the research is to: Explore the attitudes of various individuals and groups towards land management practices (namely, grazing) on areas of land in various ecoregions of Saskatchewan (Aspen Parkland, Mixed Grass Prairie, Forest Fringe) that are secured and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF) Land Trust. The project will assist the Land Trust partners in continuing to work towards an aim of improving land management practices and public perceptions around those practices, and ultimately to improving biodiversity conservation outcomes in rural Saskatchewan. The objectives of this research are to: Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF). Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices and biodiversity outcomes. Procedures:

Participation will consist of partaking in an in-person, semi-structured interview. The interview is expected to take between 10 and 20 minutes. This interview is to be conducted in person or over the phone. Interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed, if permitted by the interviewee. If consent is provided by the interview participant, the interview will be recorded using a digital recorder. Participants in this interview reserve the right to request that the audio-recorder be turned off at any time. Participants should feel free to ask any questions at any time regarding any aspect of the research project, and should feel comfortable at all times. Funded by: This study has been funded in part by the Fish and Wildlife Development Land Trust Fund. Potential Risks: The risks to participating in this research are minimal; however, you may experience feelings of discomfort, frustration, or anxiety in talking about your experiences. Risk(s) will be addressed by: ensuring confidentiality of your identity throughout data collection, analysis and reporting, and ensuring that you feel free to discontinue the interview at any time. Please feel free to contact the researchers at any time after this interview with any questions or concerns you may have. Please feel free to skip any questions you would rather not answer. Potential Benefits: By participating in this research, you are allowing the researcher to gather a wide range of perspectives on FWDF conservation lands. This information will be used to identify where improvements can be made in how these lands are used and accessed, as well explore ways in which their conservation lands and management practices could be better aligned with the public’s values and perspectives. The information will be presented to the FWDF members, and will assist them in working towards their goal of improving biodiversity conservation in Saskatchewan. Compensation: You will not be compensated financially for this interview. Confidentiality: The data from this research project may be presented orally and used to present a final report; however, your identity will be kept confidential. Although we may report direct quotations from the interview with your permission, identifying information (such as your name and the name of your organization) will be removed from the report. The research team will be responsible for managing research participant information and responses. Long-term data storage is the responsibility of the principle investigator, and data storage will be linked to the identity of participants. This is because the research aims to obtain varying perspectives that may be connected to the role or position of respondents. Your personal integrity and privacy will be respected and the researcher will not use your name unless you request it. There are several options for you to consider if you decide to take part in this interview. You can choose all, some or none of them. Please put a check mark on the corresponding line(s):

I would like to review the transcript from my interview: Yes: ___ No: ___

You may use a direct quote from my interview in any publication: Yes: ___ No: ___

You may quote me and use my name: Yes: ___ No: ___

I wish to remain anonymous, but you may refer to me by a pseudonym: Yes: __ No: ___

The pseudonym I choose for myself is: ______________________________________

I want the opportunity to review my quotes prior to any release of information: Yes: ___ No: ___

Storage of Data: Hard copies of all data from this interview will be stored with the researcher in password-protected digital files and locked offices for a period of five years after completion of this project. After a period of five years, the data files will be destroyed. Electronic data will be stored in encrypted form in a password-secured computer. Data will only be accessible to the individuals named at the beginning of the consent form. Right to Withdraw: Participation in this research project is voluntary and you may answer only those questions that you are comfortable with. You may withdraw from the interview and as a participant in the research for any reason, at any time without explanation or penalty of any sort. Should you wish to withdraw after the interview is completed, you can contact the researchers by phone or email. These contact details are listed at the front of this consent form. Upon withdrawal, all electronic and physical data and records associated with this interview will be destroyed. Your right to withdraw data from the study will apply until July 31st 2019. After this date, it is possible that some form of research dissemination will have already occurred and it may not be possible to withdraw your data. Follow-up: To obtain results from this study, please contact the researchers using the information provided at the top of page 1 Questions or Concerns: This research project has been approved on ethical grounds by the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board. Any questions regarding your rights as a participant may be addressed to that committee through the Research Ethics Office ethics.office@usask.ca (306) 966-2975. Out of town participants may call toll free (888) 966-2975. if you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact the researchers using the information provided at the top of page 1 Consent: Option 1 – SIGNED CONSENT – for personal interviews: Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the description provided; I have had an opportunity to ask questions and my/our questions have been answered. I consent to participate in the research project. A copy of this Consent Form has been given to me for my records. Name of Participant Signature Date ______________________________ _______________________ Researcher’s Signature Date A copy of this consent will be left with you, and a copy will be taken by the researcher.

Option 2 – ORAL CONSENT – for telephone interviews: I read and explained this Consent Form to the participant before receiving the participant’s consent, and the participant had knowledge of its contents and appeared to understand it. In addition, consent may be audiotaped. Name of Participant Researcher’s Signature Date

Appendix D – Recruitment email for interview participants

Sample e-mail to recruit volunteers to partake in an interview:

Dear ____________,

My name is Jory Cadman and I’m a graduate student at the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan.

I am undertaking a research project entitled: “Assessing attitudes towards Fish and Wildlife Development Fund Lands and land management practices in Saskatchewan.”

The objectives of my project are to:

• Explore and document public perceptions of conservation programs and land management practices on lands secured and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Development Fund (FWDF).

• Identify ways in which greater public engagement could feed into improving FWDF land management practices and biodiversity outcomes.

As part of this research, I would like to interview people who are aware of FWDF conservation lands in their local area and some of the land management practices that take place there. Ideally, interview participants will be individuals who access and use FWDF conservation lands.

The information you provide will be used to identify where improvements can be made in how these lands are used and accessed, as well explore ways in which their conservation lands and management practices could be better aligned with the public’s values and perspectives. The information will be presented to the FWDF members, and will assist them in working towards their goal of improving biodiversity conservation in Saskatchewan. If you are interested, I will arrange a time to talk to you by phone or in person. Both in-person and over the phone interviews should take approximately 10-20 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary and you will only be expected to answer those questions with which you are comfortable.

Please let me know by responding to this email if you are willing to participate, a time that we can talk to arrange an interview, or if you need us to provide any further clarification about the research project before confirming your participation.

Sincerely,

Jory Cadman

Appendix E – List of themes and codes

Theme Codes

Personal Awareness • not familiar with FWDF

• somewhat familiar with FWD • very familiar with FWDF

Conservation – other • concerns and suggestions • positive comments

Grazing • concerns over grazing • positive aspects of grazing • other points on grazing

Other land management practices • awareness of other land management practices • concerns over other land management practices • suggestions for improvement in land use

Personal access to FWDF lands • dissatisfied with/concerns over personal access • somewhat satisfied over personal access • very satisfied with personal access

u • against/concerns over greater public access • in favour of greater public access • road accessibility • violation of access regulations

Public awareness of FWDF lands • public awareness could be improved by… • the public is not sufficiently aware • the public is sufficiently aware